Wednesday, 11 June 2008


Never been a huge video fan, I'd rather look at stills, but am trying out the flickr video features vs YouTube just to see what it's like. Have uploaded the same video to each site - don't laugh, its really really old!

This one is a flickr video:

And this is YouTube:

First impressions:
  • flickr was really fast to 'process' the video. YouTube took aaaages
  • Private videos can't be embedded from YouTube, but can from flickr. I don't really want to have this live on YouTube, but oh well.
  • neither had any hassle with the encoding, but it is a stock standard avi from a digi cam, so wouldn't really expect any hassles anyway
  • YouTube has the option of picking a different 'still' for the video. Flickr just shows the first frame which if you had a movie that started with a fade in, wouldn't be great (tho I've only tried two uploads, must create one with a fade in and see what happens. Still waiting to be able to select a still for YouTube tho, will check back later and see if they've given me any options yet (I might just be dense tho!)
  • flickr video is limited to 90 seconds - this is part of their video philosophy rather than a technical limitation
  • I like the annotation features in YouTube, nothing similar in flickr
Other than that, they both seem pretty similar.

1 comment:

  1. cool idea.
    the flickr video kept stopping and starting, and I couldnt tell if it had finished, or just catching up with it self. the you tube quality was a little less, however played with fluidity.

    Nice blog Rach, i shall add you to the blog roll, thanks!